More recently, some are attempting to accomplish the same goal without amending the U.S. Constitution, by passing laws in state legislatures requiring the state's electors to vote for the candidate who reportedly won a majority of the votes cast by citizens nationwide.

There are several reasons to maintain and defend the Electoral College in its traditional form:

The Electoral College requires a broad base of support for a candidate to be elected president, and this helps unify such a large and diverse nation.

The Electoral College discourages candidates from seeking to win by offering special entitlements to large population centers at the expense of others.

The Electoral College limits any recounts to one state, thereby avoiding a nationwide recount that could paralyze the large nation.

The Electoral College is an important check on pure majoritarian rule, placing informed electors in between the masses and the final decision.

The Electoral College has worked well for over 200 years, and because it ain't broke, don't try to fix it with unknown consequences.

The Electoral College virtually ensures that the president won a majority and thus a mandate, which has not existed in most recent popular vote results.

The Electoral College reduces the incentives and opportunities for there to be machine or corrupt voting in areas which overwhelmingly support one side.

Here are some rebuttals to the above arguments (each rebuttal corresponds to the argument above with the same number):

Electors are pledged to a candidate; therefore, they cannot use their discretion.

There have been several instances where the Electoral College winner did not win the popular vote, much less a majority of the popular vote, most recently George W. Bush in 2000.